At first, the non-Muslims were treated kindly by the sultan-rule, by having to pay taxes but not required to join the army. (Though many converted to Islamic to avoid the tax). Also, later after Suleyman's rule in the mid 1520's, Jews and Christians were not mistreated by the Ottomans, and people were allowed to practice any religion they wanted.
What were Suleyman's major accomplishments?
Suleyman greatly expanded the Empire, to it's greatest size. He also created a foundation of a highly structured government, with many "underneath" people loyal to him. And lastly, Suleyman supported the arts through architecture with the help of a skilled architect, throughout his capital. His accomplishments were so great that after his fall, the Ottoman Empire struggled to thrive afterwards.
Despite their brilliant rule, what critical mistake did Suleiman and Shah Abbas make?
Fearing the seize of power from they're own sons, Suleiman and Shah Abbas both killed their most talented of their sons. This however, only made their unstable grandchildren became shahs after them. The grandchildren's ineffective way of ruling caused the empire(s) to fall.
What evidence of cultural blending can you find in Akbar's rule?
The language of Urdu, a blending of Persian, Arabic, and Hindi, grew out during his reign. It is the official language of Pakistan today and still commonly spoken in India.
How did Akbar's successors contribute to the end of the Mughal Empire?
Akbar's successors abandoned the idea of anyone having any religion they want, and making life harder for Hindus. Taxes were not controlled with manageability (on the citizens' part) and the fall of the Mughal Empire was inevitable.
With the rebirth of thinking and questioning their world in the Western European Renaissance, people began to really "think outside the box". They questioned their lives and how they were governed, they questioned the authority of leaders and the Church and they questioned how things WERE. All of this challenging also led to what is known as the SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION. FOR NEXT CLASS, read pages 189-194 and answer the following questions thoughtfully and carefully.
What were the CAUSES of the Scientific Revolution? Which one do you think is MOST significant AND WHY?
The causes of the Scientific Revolution was due to the age of European exploration into new topics. People began to become more curious, due to the Renaissance new-age spark, and began to ask questions that they thought have been answered for centuries, under the approval of the Church. Also, the followers of the Reformation began to question the traditional ways of God's teachings and come up of with other scientific options instead. European exploration of new lands and learning new truths also added to the coming of the Scientific Revolution. I think the most significant would be the doubting of the Church...because whatever the Church said was pretty much thought of as true. And when science contradicted the Church, this changed their entire outlook on life.
Why might those in positions of authority at the time (Church and government) tend to reject new ideas?
Leaders rejected new ideas because they don't want to lose control over their people. When people start to become uncertain about the government and the Church, these people in authority are decreased in validity, which might make the people want new officials that support science.
Do you agree with Galileo's actions during his trial? Explain.
Although his belief in Copernicus' theories were unwavering, Galileo had to confess against himself that he had been wrong to doubt the Church. He was put under the threat of torture and under pressure of powerful officials, so I think he really had no other choice to read the signed confession. To have done otherwise would probably have lead to death, which would've put an end to his studies. (Because he continued to study even though he was not free.
Make a list of the major figures of this revolution in thinking and what they did.
Copernicus- First in the the Renaissance period to officially present the idea of a heliocentric universe
Brahe- Continued Copernicus' studies by recording planetary data
Kepler- Continued Brahe's work on a mathematical scale
Galileo- Built and published findings on the new idea of astronomy
Bacon- Urged scientists to experiment then draw conclusions, unlike medieval scholars who relying on past figures.
Descartes- Developed analytical geometry and provided another tool for scientific research. Also believed that everything should be doubted until proved by reason.
Newton- Explained and published his research about the law of gravity in the book
Explain the significance of these terms:
Geocentric Theory
Idea that the earth was the center of the universe, with all other things, including the sun, revolving around it. This medieval idea is supported by the Church and government, and was commonly thought of as true before the Scientific Revolution.
Heliocentric Theory
Idea that the earth and all other planets revolved around the sun, making it the center of the universe. This revolutionary idea sparked the Scientific Revolution, causing people to be hesitant towards the Church and the government.
Scientific Revolution
A time period of social change in which people changed their views on the natural world around them. This change allowed people to have a wider perspective on the world.
Scientific method
A system of experimentation that gathers, analyses, and concludes data about a certain topic. Scientists can more accurately come to conclusions through experimentation and observation through this method. Before, abstract, close-minded reasoning was the common procedure, which led to inaccurate conclusions.
‘How did the Renaissance contribute to the opening of the mind in Europe?'
The Renaissance was a period of enrichment in the minds of common people, due to the new discoveries being made all around them. Contradiction to the Church and exploration further in the areas of science, and the exchange of information among cultures brought to this opening of the mind.
People also began gaining thorough knowledge in fields of science and astronomy. The Church and the Bible supports the fact of geocentrism, or the idea of the sun revolving around the earth. People had thought this was the fact because, until then, no one could challenge the Church. However, the idea of heliocetrism, or the scientifically proven fact that the earth revolves around the sun (other than the other way around), was only an example of how the Church was wrong in their teachings. This made people question and ask: What else had the conservative Church gone wrong about?
When cultures mixed, especially around the big trading cities, information about different lifestyles and ideas were exchanged. This swapping of thoughts is significant, because it gave citizens insight on a global scale. Renaissance men and women are exposed to a new scope: art and literature, all influenced by previous generations of glory: Greece and Rome. I think that this is is critical factor because the global and the past generations affect Renaissance mind opening by contrasting to the world of their former lives, during the miserable Dark Ages, with orthodox beliefs and embracing death (and not life).
The Renaissance was a period of creativity mixing with thought, with help from new discoveries that concern their traditional Church and ideas among the people themselves.
Why do you think Europe gained dominance?
I think that Europe is a leading power because it was the first to challenge the church and how revolutionary the people found the idea that the Church was proven wrong. Once the medieval Christians realized this, the once-almighty, righteous, and typically correct Church didn't seem so valid anymore. This realization brought to the fact that these Europeans started making separations from the Church in economic, political, or scientific ways. I think this has made Europe dominant as a whole because they didn't have the conservative restrictions of the Church to keep them from civilizing or becoming more modern.
1. How did the cities of Italy help create the Renaissance?
Cities are places where people exchange ideas, so a city is basically an ideal place for a intellectual revolution to occur. Also, because the disease that wiped out half the population, people were forced to take up jobs other than trade and pursue other interest such as art.
2. What is your opinion of the Medici family?
Though they were dictators that put themselves on top, I think they are generous models of art patrons, because the amount of money they pumped into the rebuilding the beauty of Florence. Also, the text mentions how the family made their manuscript libraries public. This means that they wanted to locally encourage art.
3. How did Humanism influence Renaissance ideas?
Humanism tried not to make the ideas fit with the Church, which were instead studied to understand ancient Greek values. So, artists and architects tried to carry on these traditions. Also, with humanism, came the study of humanities, history, literature,and philosophy.
4. Why did church leaders and wealthy merchants support the arts?
The wealthy proved their importance by having their portraits painted or publicly donating art. Church leaders patronized art to beautify Europe.
5. What were the similarities and differences between upper-class Renaissance men and women?
The qualities called for in both Renaissance men and women were expected to know the classics and be charming. However, women were not expected to seek fame as the men did. Also, they were not to create art, but just encourage it.
6. After reading the "Analyzing Primary Sources" box, respond to this question: Do the qualities called for in the ideal Renaissance man and woman seem to emphasize the individual or the group? Give evidence in the documents to back up your answer!
The ideal Renaissance man and woman emphasized the individual's glory and accomplishment. Castiglione says, "Let the man we are seeking be very bold, stern, and always among the first...." Castiglione says that an accomplished man has to be ahead of everyone. As an individual, he must be well versed in humanities. Isabella d'Este also supports the individual outlook when she says converting our portrait into another figure....a youthful Christ....with all the sweetness and charm." d'Este implies that as a patron, she is comparable to God. She asks her paid artist to portray her in a way that glorifies her
distinctively independent.
heretical - Un-Christian and unorthodox thoughts/beliefs
faggot - a bundle of sticks that is used to kindle the accused person's burning stake.
Eucharist - A Catholic custom, the Eucharist is bread, which symbolizes Jesus' body
abstain - self-discipline.
penance - a punishment on oneself for sins or wrongdoings to God
beseeching - pleading
source - a reference from another document, movie, or person that is reliable information.
1. In section 1, Heretical Beliefs, the historian gives his account of a historical event. What is happening to Hogsflesh? What is the historian's “story” or main point of the article?
Hogsflesh, after negatively expressing his views on the Church, is being publicly punished for doing so. He is stripped of his clothes, and forced to walk around with kindling in his arms, as a reminder of what could happen if he did not do his penance. The historian tries to emphasize that this penance was made by the Church to not only serve as a reminder for him, but to the people watching what would happen if disobedience like this occurs.
2. What are the roles of a historian defined by John Arnold? Do you agree or disagree with his assumptions? Can you think of any other roles? Arnold describes historians as analysists and detectives (who interpret the topic), judge, political campaigner, philosophers, synthesizers, and story tellers. I really like how describes historians with different roles, apart from the most obvious job, understander. I think another important role is "advocate". I think this is because a lot of people today do not realize the importance of history. However, the historian give history a purpose, not just useless dates and facts. The purpose of history is to know the past and learn from it, and that's a thought that I'm sure every historian has.
3. What is meant by “treat(ing) their sources with fidelity?” Remember to put your response in your own words. Why is it important to remember this when reading historical references?Fidelity, or trust, is put into sources by historians when they research their topics.The historians put their faith into their sources and I think this is important because sources are, in the end, all we have to thoroughly knowing more about the event.
4. How can a single event be interpreted in more than one way? Can you think of an event in your life that historians could interpret with differing points of view?
According to the views that the historian holds, one can interpret history an entirely different way than another. This causes controversy and debate, this mingling of different ideas. When I first came to Korea, I bet historians could interpret my parents for bringing me here to a strange, unfamiliar place. Some people could say that my parents were giving me a new experience, and an opportunity to expand to an foreign country. Some could accuse of my parents of uprooting me in a my safe, relaxed home back in the States.
5. Talk to a family member or friend about something that happened to you both a long time ago. Examine how you both remember the incident and write about it. With that in mind, when attaching meaning to history, is it possible for a historian to be completely objective? Use examples from the incident you just discussed to reinforce your response.
When I was little, I was running for class president. My opponent and I were having a class election speech, and I couldn't stay neutral and talk about how my cons or her pros. I think its impossible to be truly non-objective because then you couldn't form your own opinion, rather than just learning facts.
6. What problems may arise when historians practice subjective history? In what ways may subjective history be beneficial to the study of history? Think back to the incident you just discussed with your family member or friend. Why did it make sense for you to remember the event the way you did and for the other person to remember it the way he or she did? What does this tell us about history?
The audience, who has had little to no research in this topic, may get confused or get the wrong idea if the material given is based off of opinions or assumptions. However, subjective history is really important when understanding conflicts between two groups of people, because of their differences. Their subjectivity helps us understand why the conflict occurred.
Because I was thinking of way to put myself in a better light for voters, and she was also doing the same, we probably remember this event. I was so certain about my election that I almost forgot that my opponent had a lot of pros, too. This example shows us that sometimes it is hard to remember that the other side may have as strong feelings as you do too, and how both our biased feelings had left the audience torn between our statements of "who's better".
7. Why is every historian "a storyteller?" If all historians are storytellers and there are myriad versions of every story, can we trust historians? Why or why not?
Historians have to broadcast their findings to people through books, movies, interviews, presentations, etc. etc. However, the slightly varied versions of these stories still allows me to trust historians because all historians have different opinions and some of the subjectivity might leak into their "broadcasts".
8. How did your view of history and historians change based on this reading? How will you approach history now that you have explored these views?
Before, I really doubted historians because of the way some much time has evolved the original accounts of what really happened. Now, I realize that history is still true, but described in a way that depends on the hat of the historian.
Q: Why is an understanding of culture necessary in order to understand history?
A: Understanding of cultural differences is a skill in learning history because two conflicting sides can be acknowledged, while still being a third-party learner. By knowing how each side was raised (each with different customs than the other), we can assume that the conflict was because of a disagreement of two very different groups of people. For example, because North Koreans have the communist belief that force can keep their people in line, and South Koreans have the common belief of a people rule, the differences cause an obvious separation. Though both Korean, the 50 years that passed by made our differences even bigger, lowering the chances of ever being together again. These differences have changed into their own customs, making their culture very distinct from South Koreans. Understanding these differences is what makes history essential: to make sure that we learn from these past mistakes. Past conflicts give a future generations a warning to overcome cultural differences, as unlike as they may be.
UNIT III - Yujin Chong
Age of Exploration- Yujin Chong
China: A Missed Opportunity for Global Dominance
Yujin Chong Islamic Paragraph
Islam-Comparing/Contrasting
Yujin Chong: Access to Information Planning
The Muslim World Expands- Questions
With the rebirth of thinking and questioning their world in the Western European Renaissance, people began to really "think outside the box". They questioned their lives and how they were governed, they questioned the authority of leaders and the Church and they questioned how things WERE. All of this challenging also led to what is known as the SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION. FOR NEXT CLASS, read pages 189-194 and answer the following questions thoughtfully and carefully.
‘How did the Renaissance contribute to the opening of the mind in Europe?'
The Renaissance was a period of enrichment in the minds of common people, due to the new discoveries being made all around them. Contradiction to the Church and exploration further in the areas of science, and the exchange of information among cultures brought to this opening of the mind.
People also began gaining thorough knowledge in fields of science and astronomy. The Church and the Bible supports the fact of geocentrism, or the idea of the sun revolving around the earth. People had thought this was the fact because, until then, no one could challenge the Church. However, the idea of heliocetrism, or the scientifically proven fact that the earth revolves around the sun (other than the other way around), was only an example of how the Church was wrong in their teachings. This made people question and ask: What else had the conservative Church gone wrong about?
When cultures mixed, especially around the big trading cities, information about different lifestyles and ideas were exchanged. This swapping of thoughts is significant, because it gave citizens insight on a global scale. Renaissance men and women are exposed to a new scope: art and literature, all influenced by previous generations of glory: Greece and Rome. I think that this is is critical factor because the global and the past generations affect Renaissance mind opening by contrasting to the world of their former lives, during the miserable Dark Ages, with orthodox beliefs and embracing death (and not life).
The Renaissance was a period of creativity mixing with thought, with help from new discoveries that concern their traditional Church and ideas among the people themselves.
Why do you think Europe gained dominance?
I think that Europe is a leading power because it was the first to challenge the church and how revolutionary the people found the idea that the Church was proven wrong. Once the medieval Christians realized this, the once-almighty, righteous, and typically correct Church didn't seem so valid anymore. This realization brought to the fact that these Europeans started making separations from the Church in economic, political, or scientific ways. I think this has made Europe dominant as a whole because they didn't have the conservative restrictions of the Church to keep them from civilizing or becoming more modern.
HOMEWORK pg. 39 questions:
1. How did the cities of Italy help create the Renaissance?
Cities are places where people exchange ideas, so a city is basically an ideal place for a intellectual revolution to occur. Also, because the disease that wiped out half the population, people were forced to take up jobs other than trade and pursue other interest such as art.
2. What is your opinion of the Medici family?
Though they were dictators that put themselves on top, I think they are generous models of art patrons, because the amount of money they pumped into the rebuilding the beauty of Florence. Also, the text mentions how the family made their manuscript libraries public. This means that they wanted to locally encourage art.
3. How did Humanism influence Renaissance ideas?
Humanism tried not to make the ideas fit with the Church, which were instead studied to understand ancient Greek values. So, artists and architects tried to carry on these traditions. Also, with humanism, came the study of humanities, history, literature,and philosophy.
4. Why did church leaders and wealthy merchants support the arts?
The wealthy proved their importance by having their portraits painted or publicly donating art. Church leaders patronized art to beautify Europe.
5. What were the similarities and differences between upper-class Renaissance men and women?
The qualities called for in both Renaissance men and women were expected to know the classics and be charming. However, women were not expected to seek fame as the men did. Also, they were not to create art, but just encourage it.
6. After reading the "Analyzing Primary Sources" box, respond to this question: Do the qualities called for in the ideal Renaissance man and woman seem to emphasize the individual or the group? Give evidence in the documents to back up your answer!
The ideal Renaissance man and woman emphasized the individual's glory and accomplishment. Castiglione says, "Let the man we are seeking be very bold, stern, and always among the first...." Castiglione says that an accomplished man has to be ahead of everyone. As an individual, he must be well versed in humanities. Isabella d'Este also supports the individual outlook when she says converting our portrait into another figure....a youthful Christ....with all the sweetness and charm." d'Este implies that as a patron, she is comparable to God. She asks her paid artist to portray her in a way that glorifies her
distinctively independent.
Hamel's Journal:
Yujin's Family History
Yujin ChongDue: Aug. 16, 2011
Vocabulary
1. In section 1, Heretical Beliefs, the historian gives his account of a historical event. What is happening to Hogsflesh? What is the historian's “story” or main point of the article?
Hogsflesh, after negatively expressing his views on the Church, is being publicly punished for doing so. He is stripped of his clothes, and forced to walk around with kindling in his arms, as a reminder of what could happen if he did not do his penance. The historian tries to emphasize that this penance was made by the Church to not only serve as a reminder for him, but to the people watching what would happen if disobedience like this occurs.
2. What are the roles of a historian defined by John Arnold? Do you agree or disagree with his assumptions? Can you think of any other roles?
Arnold describes historians as analysists and detectives (who interpret the topic), judge, political campaigner, philosophers, synthesizers, and story tellers. I really like how describes historians with different roles, apart from the most obvious job, understander. I think another important role is "advocate". I think this is because a lot of people today do not realize the importance of history. However, the historian give history a purpose, not just useless dates and facts. The purpose of history is to know the past and learn from it, and that's a thought that I'm sure every historian has.
3. What is meant by “treat(ing) their sources with fidelity?” Remember to put your response in your own words. Why is it important to remember this when reading historical references?Fidelity, or trust, is put into sources by historians when they research their topics.The historians put their faith into their sources and I think this is important because sources are, in the end, all we have to thoroughly knowing more about the event.
4. How can a single event be interpreted in more than one way? Can you think of an event in your life that historians could interpret with differing points of view?
According to the views that the historian holds, one can interpret history an entirely different way than another. This causes controversy and debate, this mingling of different ideas. When I first came to Korea, I bet historians could interpret my parents for bringing me here to a strange, unfamiliar place. Some people could say that my parents were giving me a new experience, and an opportunity to expand to an foreign country. Some could accuse of my parents of uprooting me in a my safe, relaxed home back in the States.
5. Talk to a family member or friend about something that happened to you both a long time ago. Examine how you both remember the incident and write about it. With that in mind, when attaching meaning to history, is it possible for a historian to be completely objective? Use examples from the incident you just discussed to reinforce your response.
When I was little, I was running for class president. My opponent and I were having a class election speech, and I couldn't stay neutral and talk about how my cons or her pros. I think its impossible to be truly non-objective because then you couldn't form your own opinion, rather than just learning facts.
6. What problems may arise when historians practice subjective history? In what ways may subjective history be beneficial to the study of history? Think back to the incident you just discussed with your family member or friend. Why did it make sense for you to remember the event the way you did and for the other person to remember it the way he or she did? What does this tell us about history?
The audience, who has had little to no research in this topic, may get confused or get the wrong idea if the material given is based off of opinions or assumptions. However, subjective history is really important when understanding conflicts between two groups of people, because of their differences. Their subjectivity helps us understand why the conflict occurred.
Because I was thinking of way to put myself in a better light for voters, and she was also doing the same, we probably remember this event. I was so certain about my election that I almost forgot that my opponent had a lot of pros, too. This example shows us that sometimes it is hard to remember that the other side may have as strong feelings as you do too, and how both our biased feelings had left the audience torn between our statements of "who's better".
7. Why is every historian "a storyteller?" If all historians are storytellers and there are myriad versions of every story, can we trust historians? Why or why not?
Historians have to broadcast their findings to people through books, movies, interviews, presentations, etc. etc. However, the slightly varied versions of these stories still allows me to trust historians because all historians have different opinions and some of the subjectivity might leak into their "broadcasts".
8. How did your view of history and historians change based on this reading? How will you approach history now that you have explored these views?
Before, I really doubted historians because of the way some much time has evolved the original accounts of what really happened. Now, I realize that history is still true, but described in a way that depends on the hat of the historian.
Q: Why is an understanding of culture necessary in order to understand history?
A: Understanding of cultural differences is a skill in learning history because two conflicting sides can be acknowledged, while still being a third-party learner. By knowing how each side was raised (each with different customs than the other), we can assume that the conflict was because of a disagreement of two very different groups of people. For example, because North Koreans have the communist belief that force can keep their people in line, and South Koreans have the common belief of a people rule, the differences cause an obvious separation. Though both Korean, the 50 years that passed by made our differences even bigger, lowering the chances of ever being together again. These differences have changed into their own customs, making their culture very distinct from South Koreans. Understanding these differences is what makes history essential: to make sure that we learn from these past mistakes. Past conflicts give a future generations a warning to overcome cultural differences, as unlike as they may be.
Yujin Chong: Access to Information Planning